Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

The Tax Debate

Recommended Posts

What a fallacy, to justify a wrongdoing by pointing out a worse wrongdoing.

It's like saying that Sadam wasn't bad because when compared to Stalin or Hitler, he only killed a couple of million as opposed dozens of million.

Or how about, "Hey, my house was robbed, but it's ok because they only took the tv and some jewlery. The neighbors house on the other hand was cleaned out. So I don't mind."

Wouldn't be suprised if in a decade there will be insurgency, trying futilely to expose and overthrow this corrupt, illegitimate goverment, by force.

That's why accountability on personal level, and extreemly tough sentences need to be imposed and enforced on every government employee. If a government employee (appointed, elected or hired) knowingly violates the Constitution, it's execution time. Corrupt/illegal conduct = labor camp. Willfull incompetence = prison time. Gross incompetence = termination without any further ability in government employment, for life. Only then will you get a clean government. There will NEVER be responsibility without accountability, those two go hand in hand. Without these ideas being instituted, we the sheep will always be getting fleeced and abused.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Originally posted by Soback:

What a fallacy, to justify a wrongdoing by pointing out a worse wrongdoing.

It's like saying that Sadam wasn't bad because when compared to Stalin or Hitler, he only killed a couple of million as opposed dozens of million.

Or how about, "Hey, my house was robbed, but it's ok because they only took the tv and some jewlery. The neighbors house on the other hand was cleaned out. So I don't mind."

Wouldn't be suprised if in a decade there will be insurgency, trying futilely to expose and overthrow this corrupt, illegitimate goverment, by force.

That's why accountability on personal level, and extreemly tough sentences need to be imposed and enforced on every government employee. If a government employee (appointed, elected or hired) knowingly violates the Constitution, it's execution time. Corrupt/illegal conduct = labor camp. Willfull incompetence = prison time. Gross incompetence = termination without any further ability in government employment, for life. Only then will you get a clean government. There will NEVER be responsibility without accountability, those two go hand in hand. Without these ideas being instituted, we the sheep will always be getting fleeced and abused.


...and therefore open the nation up to tyranny and oppression as a police state.

No thanks. I'd rather pay taxes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Aramike, way to debate with facts.

Facts are, our government is corrupt.

Facts are, if you don't have accountability on the personal level, and there's no repricussions for violating the law, the criminals run rampant and missconduct is common.

It's elementary. The punishment prevents the crime. If you could rob a bank, shoot 10 people, and the max sentence you could get is a year in prison, this type of crime would be common, everyday occurence. Therefore, if you can steal, cheat the taxpayers, not do your job and collect a paycheck, abuse the power of your position, and not even be fired, then all that would be a common occurence, which it already is.

Clinton lied, and not went to jail. Senators steal, take bribes, and don't lose their jobs, at most they "appologise" and maybe step down (which is laughable). We the people get abused, and are ALWAYS just one beurocrat (judge, policeman, IRS agent, ect..) away from having ALL our posessions confiscated, land siezed, life ruined, and time in prison. And that's an everyday occurence. Starting from the immenent domain law, going through the fees/taxes bleed, and ending like those ranchers (in Arizona was it, or New Mexico), having their property confiscated because they kicked ILLEGALS off of it. Now THAT's a police state. A state where the government (the state) is POLICING it's citizens.

Don't know what police state you don't want to live in. However, a country where the people are not afraid of their government, and the power is FROM the people (like it was intended), is a good place to be. Don't try to justify something just because it's the government that's doing it. You tried it with when you defended the selloff of OUR highways, the ones WE paid for, to private companies, so that we can continue to pay MORE, and now you are trying to make one phrase of "police state" argue the whole point for you.

Look up "Police state" aramike. It's when the CITIZENS are oppressed by the government, NOT when the government is accountable TO the citizens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

Clinton lied, and not went to jail. Senators steal, take bribes, and don't lose their jobs, at most they "appologise" and maybe step down (which is laughable). We the people get abused, and are ALWAYS just one beurocrat (judge, policeman, IRS agent, ect..) away from having ALL our posessions confiscated, land siezed, life ruined, and time in prison. And that's an everyday occurence. Starting from the immenent domain law, going through the fees/taxes bleed, and ending like those ranchers (in Arizona was it, or New Mexico), having their property confiscated because they kicked ILLEGALS off of it. Now THAT's a police state. A state where the government (the state) is POLICING it's citizens.


Case in point. Alan Hevesi New York Comptroller. Twice stole tax payers money to pay for private affairs. This time it came out right before this past elections. He claims he had forgotten to pay it back. Twice in a row he forgot? Meanwhile, employees that work in his office have been fired for less by him. What makes matters worse, the people of NY still voted him back into office. OMFG! People wonder why the way I am towards politicians and the voting public here in NY. Then again, it is a democratic strong hold. That should tell you something.

The NY Times: Alan G. Hevesi

There's a lot to read but it's worth it. He did come out with a campaign ad in the middle of the brouhaha and appologized still claiming it was oversight on his part. He better remember that when one of the employees at his office makes a mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:


Yeah, Aramike, way to debate with facts.

Actually, I am debating with facts. I'm conservative - which means I believe constructionally in the Constitution. And here are the REAL facts that you either don't know or ignore.

The fact is that through the 16th Ammendment taxes are allowed to be levied at the discretion of Congress (specifically the House as granted later).

Although I'm certain you'll ignore those facts, alas I'll present portions of the Constitution that argues against the absurdities you propose:

ARTICLE THREE, SECTION THREE:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

That should at least partially answer why you can't simply execute people for violations of the Constitution.

However, in case you wish to argue against that, you may want to research what you consider to be "against the Constitution" with regards to taxes.

Here, I'll put it in bold italics: READ the Constitution before claiming that something is in violation of the Constitution.

Regarding taxes, here's the 16th Ammendment (which you've clearly ignored): The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Here's another one, ARTICLE 2 SECTION 3 regarding the Presidency and laws: Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Since the words "faithfully executed" rely upon judgement, how can you possibly subject officials to EXECUTION based upon ANYONE'S JUDGEMENT?

In case you haven't read it (which I don't think you have), the Constitution doesn't allow for punishment based upon interpretation. However, considering that the Constitution SPECIFICALLY allows for ammendment and interpretation, what you propose would be akin to a police state.

Oh, and it's stupid.

Let's say that the people who interpret the Constitution decide that it means something YOU don't agree with. Then you would be subject to punishment. Good thing the Constitution SPECIFICALLY CALLS FOR Constitutional disagreements to be settled CIVILLY, and NOT CRIMINALLY (except for treason).

Hmmm, so where are these violations that you speak of? If not taxes, than what's the point in relation to this thread?

quote:


Look up "Police state" aramike. It's when the CITIZENS are oppressed by the government, NOT when the government is accountable TO the citizens.

Maybe you missed the part about our government being for the people, BY THE PEOPLE.

Citizen government - any criminal restrictions upon it are against CITIZENS, and we would therefore be a POLICE STATE.

Considering that a POLICE STATE would allow the police to have absolute control, and that YOU propose that the government be at the mercy of the judgement of a criminally prosecuting organization (versus that organization being at the mercy of the citizen government), you propose a POLICE STATE.

See, the Constitution grants 3 co-equal branches of government and SPECIFICALLY CALLS for governmental and Constitutional disagreements to be settled through a civil process (NOT a criminal process). Civil law does NOT allow for execution or imprisonment, PERIOD.

You may want to come equipped with facts next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×